Article III and the Westfall Act: identifying "federal ingredients." (Federal Employees Liability Reform and Tort Compensation Act)
Article Abstract:
Federal jurisdiction should be determined under Article III of the Constitution according to whether federal law would have to be applied by state courts with jurisdiction over the case. According to this approach, the Federal Employees Liability Reform and Tort Compensation Act (Westfall Act) does not constitute a federal ingredient falling within Article III. Therefore, remand to state court should be ordered for cases under the Westfall Act when it is decided that a federal employee was not acting within the scope of federal employment, making the case a tort claim governed by state law.
Publication Name: University of Chicago Law Review
Subject: Law
ISSN: 0041-9494
Year: 1997
User Contributions:
Comment about this article or add new information about this topic:
Raising the cost of lying: rethinking Erie for judicial estoppel
Article Abstract:
The most aggressive version of judicial estoppel, whether in federal or state law, should be applied by federal courts sitting in diversity. The recommended approach involves a modification of the Erie doctrine, one that results in a more even allocation of power between the federal and state courts. Parallel treatments of conflict of laws issues such as statutes of limitations and evidentiary privileges support the recommended approach. Current approaches to judicial estoppel include the success test, the fast and loose test and complete rejection of estoppel.
Publication Name: University of Chicago Law Review
Subject: Law
ISSN: 0041-9494
Year: 1997
User Contributions:
Comment about this article or add new information about this topic:
"Mend the hold" and Erie: why an obscure contracts doctrine should control in federal diversity cases
Article Abstract:
The "mend the hold" doctrine represents the type of state law that federal courts must observe when deciding diversity cases. The doctrine that limits the defenses to contract actions to those used either at the time of dispute or those used at trial does not conflict with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The potential effects of the doctrine on judicial policy is insufficient reason to apply it in federal diversity actions.
Publication Name: University of Chicago Law Review
Subject: Law
ISSN: 0041-9494
Year: 1998
User Contributions:
Comment about this article or add new information about this topic:
- Abstracts: Exporters of eco-technology seek IP protection; the 1994 TRIPs Agreement offers global patentability for most environmental products
- Abstracts: The formation of the family limited partnership: fraudulent transfer liability and other family problems. Future creditors and fraudulent transfers: when a claimant doesn't have a claim, when a transfer isn't a transfer, when fraud doesn't stay fradulent, and other important limits to fraudulent transfers law for the asset protection planner
- Abstracts: Mchape: a wake-up call for AIDS control programs in Africa (a case history for Malawi). The "best proven therapeutic method" standard in clinical trials in technologically developing countries
- Abstracts: Is administrative law the corporate future?. New super-tribunal to replace Small Claims Tribunal. From the Administrative Appeals Tribunal to the Federal Court: treading the path of reform
- Abstracts: Consumer dealings. Debt collection and the Trade Practices Act